If I'm wearing out on politics, you know it's bad. Now there's nothing left to do but beat each other up until April 22nd.
In the meantime, I'll hit a less complicated subject-National Service (AmeriCorps, etc).
Good news! All three leading candidates support national service!
Barack Obama proposes tripling the size of the AmeriCorps program
Hillary Clinton is a big supporter-Bill Clinton started AmeriCorps and greatly expanded other service programs
John McCain stood up to Newt Gingrich and friends multiple times when AmeriCorps was cut from the federal budget to make sure it remained fully funded.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Health Care, Sigh
Ugh, I've been procrastinating this one, but might as well get it over with.
Last weekend I went to visit family in Spokane, and I was looking forward to getting the straight answer from my uncle, who is a doctor! Surely, he would be able to give the ultimate answer on how to solve health care. Having discussed this subject with him many times before, I had a sinking feeling that he wouldn't have an endorsement, which turned out to be true!
His analysis of the health care situation was something like this (I'm paraphrasing):
The system is totally and completely screwed up. It's so screwed up and ridiculous it's hard to know where to begin. Every insurance company is worse than the one before, with medicare being the worst offender. The system is inefficient, expensive and wasteful. It's scarey to think of the government running health care because medicare is so screwed up. But the system is so screwed up now, it couldn't really get much worse, so maybe any plan is a good place to start!
Hmm, this didn't help me with figuring out who has the best plan, but here's a quick analysis from a definite non expert in medicine or economics:
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both have nearly identical plans. Both support creation of a national plan available to everyone, while allowing people to keep their current plans if they have and like them. They both support eliminating "preexisting conditions" as reasons to deny coverage. Both support easier enrollment, less paperwork, less red tape (who doesn't). The main difference between them is that Clinton would require all Americans to have health insurance under the new plan, while Obama would not technically require it, except for children.
John McCain doesn't support the government running a national health care plan, but supports major changes: namely removing employer based health care and making it individual with tax credits, increasing competition for drug companies, insurance companies etc.
Ron Paul also says no government health care, supports making all medical expenses tax deductible.
I think the bottom line is everyone knows the system is screwed up. As my wise uncle sad "there's no model for a good way to do this".
I think the answer should include:
I think either one of these (nearly identical) plans is worth a shot...why not?
Last weekend I went to visit family in Spokane, and I was looking forward to getting the straight answer from my uncle, who is a doctor! Surely, he would be able to give the ultimate answer on how to solve health care. Having discussed this subject with him many times before, I had a sinking feeling that he wouldn't have an endorsement, which turned out to be true!
His analysis of the health care situation was something like this (I'm paraphrasing):
The system is totally and completely screwed up. It's so screwed up and ridiculous it's hard to know where to begin. Every insurance company is worse than the one before, with medicare being the worst offender. The system is inefficient, expensive and wasteful. It's scarey to think of the government running health care because medicare is so screwed up. But the system is so screwed up now, it couldn't really get much worse, so maybe any plan is a good place to start!
Hmm, this didn't help me with figuring out who has the best plan, but here's a quick analysis from a definite non expert in medicine or economics:
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both have nearly identical plans. Both support creation of a national plan available to everyone, while allowing people to keep their current plans if they have and like them. They both support eliminating "preexisting conditions" as reasons to deny coverage. Both support easier enrollment, less paperwork, less red tape (who doesn't). The main difference between them is that Clinton would require all Americans to have health insurance under the new plan, while Obama would not technically require it, except for children.
John McCain doesn't support the government running a national health care plan, but supports major changes: namely removing employer based health care and making it individual with tax credits, increasing competition for drug companies, insurance companies etc.
Ron Paul also says no government health care, supports making all medical expenses tax deductible.
I think the bottom line is everyone knows the system is screwed up. As my wise uncle sad "there's no model for a good way to do this".
I think the answer should include:
- being able to get affordable perscription drugs
- making sure people can get preventative care
- tarring and feathing insurance companies who make you call multiple times or deny claims for the hell of it
- getting away from employer based health care (although having employers contribute to this through payroll tax is a good idea)
- getting rid of the "preexisting condition"
- more $$ on public health
- send lobbyists of pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to man the NORAD station near Barrow, Alaska
I think either one of these (nearly identical) plans is worth a shot...why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
